Thursday, September 29, 2005

Patriotic Dissent

"You can't be opposed to the war in Iraq and still claim to support the global war on terror."

"You can't support the troops without supporting the commander-in-chief."

The talking points have been repeated many times by Bush apologists in the media and in the blogosphere. They are the first two corollaries of Bush's Law which states that you are either with him or with the terrorists. And while it is a propaganda talking point created to garner support for the administration agenda, many people truly believe it. They are convinced that anybody who objects to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is anti-American and doesn't care about American servicemen. But now there is hard evidence that this notion is utterly false. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Pat Tillman.

You might recall that Tillman was a pro football player with the Arizona Cardinals. He was so moved by the attacks of September 11, 2001 that he turned down a multi-million dollar contract with the Cardinals to join the Army Rangers in 2002. He wanted to go to Afghanistan, fight al Qaeda and hopefully find Osama bin Laden. He was rightly hailed as a real American hero, and set the highest example of sacrifice and service to country. He did tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, he was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. He was just 27. You might also recall that initial reports put out in the media stated that Tillman had been killed by enemy fire, and a mythology abounded. It was shameful politicizing, similar to the mythology surrounding Jessica Lynch, but all the more tragic. It took weeks for the information to come out that his death was by fratricide, with his parents having been put through the ringer all along.

This article is kind of lengthy, but it talks about the Tillmans' struggle to discover the truth about Pat's death, and the stonewalling by the military. I could do a whole blog entry just on that. But for now, I'm interested in information revealed about Pat Tillman, the man, that many might not have realized. Aside from his superior intellect and generosity, which is described in the article, Pat had strong opinions about what his mission should be (emphasis mine):

Interviews also show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author.

[...]

Instead of going to Afghanistan, as the brothers expected, their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Tillmans saw combat several times on their way to Baghdad. In early 2004, they finally were assigned to Afghanistan.

[...]

He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman [Pat's mother] said a friend of Pat's even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan, a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.

[...]

[Spc. Russell] Baer, who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, told one anecdote that took place during the March 2003 invasion as the Rangers moved up through southern Iraq.

"I can see it like a movie screen," Baer said. "We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren't in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f— illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush."

Another soldier in the platoon, who asked not to be identified, said Pat urged him to vote for Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.

Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White a Navy SEAL who served with Pat and Kevin for four months in Iraq and was the only military member to speak at Tillman's memorial said Pat "wasn't very fired up about being in Iraq" and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I think this proves what many of us have been saying since the Iraq war started - opposition to Bush and his Iraq policy does not mean you are any less patriotic, less supportive of the troops, or less committed to protecting the U.S. from terrorism. I challenge anybody who subscribes to the quotes at the top of this post to tell me that they now think Pat Tillman any less a hero.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The doctrine of 'pre-emption', when applied with the current context, is Intelligent Defence based on the unintelligent division of humanity via nation-states. The truth of the former is that which hinders the masses from historical and sociological retrospection.

9/30/2005 02:00:00 a.m.  
Blogger William said...

I would not say that Tillman was less of a hero. But, I would say that he is missing the big picture. Perhaps we should never have invaded Iraq. But, because we did, we have an obligation to them.

The unfortunate thing is that this war will take years. And my fear is that our president (democratic or republican) in 2009 will want to evacuate the US troops in Iraq.

Now, that's not heroic. That would be a disaster. We cannot simply evacuate Iraq without completing our objective.

9/30/2005 12:44:00 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

William wrote "we cannot simply evacuate Iraq without completing our objective."

Actually William, I would argue that you - and many Americans - are missing the big picture. That is, the true historical picture of Iraq as an artifical construction.

If you read your history, you will see that Iraq was artifically created by the British out of the old Ottoman Empire. Three distinct peoples... the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis were brought and held together by force.

If you remove that force, you have a security vacuum, with the three groups all vying for power.

So, if your objective is a free and democratic Iraq... how exactly will that be accomplished?

Won't US troops have to be there forever to prevent civil war?

10/01/2005 11:47:00 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home